hibbsa
2013-04-24 07:58:10 UTC
Popperians love counter-intuitive. To them, it seems counter-intuitive
isn't just lovely, it's an indication this could be RIGHT. I think it
used to be the other way around. But things have changed because
apparently the further away we get from our world the more counter
intuitive our theories become.
Or are they? Let's examine the ways things are and
aren't'counter-intuitive'.
The theories are certainly counter intuitive in the sense for most
people what the theory turns out to be wouldn't have been something they
could have intuitively anticipated. But that's not really the important
sense of the word.
Another way a theory or something about it is counter intuitive is when
there are outstanding problems or paradoxes and so on. QM is counter
intuitive, but then there's still a lot about it that hasn't been
explained. The Big Bang is counter intuitive but that remains a mystery
pretty much in its entirety. The big issues there have not yet been
explained. Black Holes are counter intuitive but we still don't have an
complete explanation of them.
So there is a lot of counter-intuitivity further out to the edge. But
all of it so far is associated with the lack of explanation, the need of
an explanation, an unhandled paradox.
Those are all the ways that I can think of that things are counter
intuitive. And the truth is, none of those ways,, back up the Popperian
idea that things get increasingly counter intuitive. The unresolved
problems sure. The baffling unexplainednesses certainly. The
contradictions and paradoxes not yet resolved. Definitely. But all of
these support the traditional view that counter-intuitivity is an
indication something isn't right, something is missing, something needs
to be resolved, something needs to be completed.
There's one other way things are counter intuitive and that can be the
insights necessary for the theory to be discovered. For sure. Geniuses
need uncommon intuition.
But show me a theory - that isn't one of yours and is nailed in the
mainstream, and is complete and self-consistent is is regarded as a
major advance. Show me one of those that you think is counter intuitive.
Show me something that is complete that is counter intuitive. Counter
intuitive in the basic idea.
I don't think there any at all. I think good explanations that pass
muster and predict new phenomena not before anticipated, are reliably
intuitive enough that you can bank on it.
Except the Popper Deutsch philosophical progression, which does see a
lot of complete explanations churned out, but also increasingly more
counter-intuitive. And that's the actual completed explanation. There's
no parallels for that across the hall in Science. That's unprecedented.
You say it's a good thing and frequently I see statements how reality is
counter-intuitive. But not according to our best theories over in
Science. Intuitive is the mark of complete explanation, and the more
things like 'had a lot of reach' and 'drove new technology' and 'led to
a whole bunch of new research directions' and 'made some stunning
predictions' ...the more all that, the more intuitive.
So I think the situation in this philosophy reflects what happens to
theories nearer the edge at all. Besides some of the most
counter-intuitive popper deutsch ideas relate to human social affairs,
families, kids and so on.
None of this is a positive on the face of things. I think you should be
worried that your explanations keep getting more counter intuitive. I
think until you have a good explanation why the philosophy is seeing
this trend, you should err on the side of caution and regard it as an
indication something is wrong.
isn't just lovely, it's an indication this could be RIGHT. I think it
used to be the other way around. But things have changed because
apparently the further away we get from our world the more counter
intuitive our theories become.
Or are they? Let's examine the ways things are and
aren't'counter-intuitive'.
The theories are certainly counter intuitive in the sense for most
people what the theory turns out to be wouldn't have been something they
could have intuitively anticipated. But that's not really the important
sense of the word.
Another way a theory or something about it is counter intuitive is when
there are outstanding problems or paradoxes and so on. QM is counter
intuitive, but then there's still a lot about it that hasn't been
explained. The Big Bang is counter intuitive but that remains a mystery
pretty much in its entirety. The big issues there have not yet been
explained. Black Holes are counter intuitive but we still don't have an
complete explanation of them.
So there is a lot of counter-intuitivity further out to the edge. But
all of it so far is associated with the lack of explanation, the need of
an explanation, an unhandled paradox.
Those are all the ways that I can think of that things are counter
intuitive. And the truth is, none of those ways,, back up the Popperian
idea that things get increasingly counter intuitive. The unresolved
problems sure. The baffling unexplainednesses certainly. The
contradictions and paradoxes not yet resolved. Definitely. But all of
these support the traditional view that counter-intuitivity is an
indication something isn't right, something is missing, something needs
to be resolved, something needs to be completed.
There's one other way things are counter intuitive and that can be the
insights necessary for the theory to be discovered. For sure. Geniuses
need uncommon intuition.
But show me a theory - that isn't one of yours and is nailed in the
mainstream, and is complete and self-consistent is is regarded as a
major advance. Show me one of those that you think is counter intuitive.
Show me something that is complete that is counter intuitive. Counter
intuitive in the basic idea.
I don't think there any at all. I think good explanations that pass
muster and predict new phenomena not before anticipated, are reliably
intuitive enough that you can bank on it.
Except the Popper Deutsch philosophical progression, which does see a
lot of complete explanations churned out, but also increasingly more
counter-intuitive. And that's the actual completed explanation. There's
no parallels for that across the hall in Science. That's unprecedented.
You say it's a good thing and frequently I see statements how reality is
counter-intuitive. But not according to our best theories over in
Science. Intuitive is the mark of complete explanation, and the more
things like 'had a lot of reach' and 'drove new technology' and 'led to
a whole bunch of new research directions' and 'made some stunning
predictions' ...the more all that, the more intuitive.
So I think the situation in this philosophy reflects what happens to
theories nearer the edge at all. Besides some of the most
counter-intuitive popper deutsch ideas relate to human social affairs,
families, kids and so on.
None of this is a positive on the face of things. I think you should be
worried that your explanations keep getting more counter intuitive. I
think until you have a good explanation why the philosophy is seeing
this trend, you should err on the side of caution and regard it as an
indication something is wrong.